Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM

82NoMe wrote in post #12113722
click to enlarge

IMAGE LINK: http://farm6.static.fl​ickr.com …41704263_f0e1b4​8aca_o.jpg

Very nice shot

Invertalon wrote in post #12112505
Could be very true... I took some photos later in the day and got some excellent results wide open, but lighting was perfect. It made me happy!

So, coming back to this, I don't know how better lighting would help unless it just allowed you to get a faster shutter speed -- is that possible?

Sure, atmospheric haze can work a bit of havoc when shooting long distances! Sometimes I leave it in (I've done a fair amount of shooting Mount St. Helens, an active volcano, at different times of the year, and that thing "lives" in a state of haze, even when I'm shooting from just 5 miles away!

are you saying 70-200 2.8 II is sharper than 300mm 2.8, both wide open?

Invertalon wrote in post #12110759
I would not consider them "issues", maybe just unrealistic expectations!

I guess my thing is I am comparing it to a few lenses I had prior (or currently) that have incredible IQ wide open... My 70-200 II for example is sharper at f/2.8 (then again, it has what 10+ years of additional lens technology behind it?). I think I was just expecting incredible head-over-heels sharpness, where that is not always the case. I have some awesome shots wide open, but it seems heavily dependent on the light (like most lenses). But stopped down to f/4 or so, it is extremely sharp... And I know lens sharpness is not everything, but having the 300mm f/4L IS for a few months prior and having excellent sharpness wide open for a much cheaper price, the cost doesn't justify the one extra stop (plus size/weight). Maybe the Mark II will change my mind when released, but affording that will not be for a few years...

And for those who may wonder... I compared my shots to the same shots taken via live-view, and they look identical/similar, so is not a cause that it needs microadjust or anything. I used this lens on both my 7D and 5Dc with similar results.

I guess it is good though I don't LOVE it like I thought I would, saves me some money in the bank... Instead, I have decided to look out for a 400mm f/5.6 to use for birding and airplanes and such... And use my 70-200 with 1.4x TC when I need the 300mm FL.

Awesome lens though... Really happy to get a chance to play around with one of the super-tele's... Maybe one day that Mark II could be mine... Because I really enjoy the 300mm native FL, especially at a f/2.8 aperture... But I also want some incredible sharpness behind it, as that is where I will use the lens 90% of the time!

Yes, with the 300mm f/2.8 I had, the 70-200 II is clearly sharper wide open.

Here are three comparison shots of the same subject from roughly the same spot (one of my sharpness targets when I get a new lens! haha)...

First one is the 300 f/2.8 - Second is the 400mm f/5.6 - Third is the 70-200 f/2.8 II

The 70-200 had the best light between the examples, but these results were typical for me... So it may not be a perfect example, but this is normal for what I saw the week I had the 300! I think something was wrong with the 300 CPS gave me, because even with live-view my results did not get any better. Who knows! Sent it back today though!

Steve- those are all too soft IMO. Some other issue?

The 300 produces the sharpest color saturated shots hands down.

Nah, just heavy crops... That hydrant is quite far away from me... I just cropped to the same framing. Bad example.. But my 70-200 II and 400L are very, very sharp... The 300mm f/2.8 was not so much.

That, and I think photobucket did some unwanted compression/resizing..​. When compared to the same image on my computer, the one on my screen is much sharper. You can still see the general idea, though.

Photobucket is arguably the worst photo host on the planet.

Nobody mangles images quite as badly as PB does.

Tell me about it! I use Flickr for all my general photos, but I use Photobucket for quick uploads... And it is clearly, terrible!

Invertalon wrote in post #12135204
Yes, with the 300mm f/2.8 I had, the 70-200 II is clearly sharper wide open.

Here are three comparison shots of the same subject from roughly the same spot (one of my sharpness targets when I get a new lens! haha)...

First one is the 300 f/2.8 - Second is the 400mm f/5.6 - Third is the 70-200 f/2.8 II

The 70-200 had the best light between the examples, but these results were typical for me... So it may not be a perfect example, but this is normal for what I saw the week I had the 300! I think something was wrong with the 300 CPS gave me, because even with live-view my results did not get any better. Who knows! Sent it back today though!

It's a joke !!! it can't be a 300L2.8, you missed focused... It's sharper than my 135L and same league as my 85L so in any case sharper than a 70-200 ..

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #12135430
Photobucket is arguably the worst photo host on the planet.

Nobody mangles images quite as badly as PB does.

For sure!!!!! It took me while to figure out the problem- totally PB.

newworld666 wrote in post #12135738
It's a joke !!! it can't be a 300L2.8, you missed focused... It's sharper than my 135L and same league as my 85L so in any case sharper than a 70-200 ..

Well, I have 300 2.8L non-is..and my 200 2.8L II is much sharper wide open..
Stopped down to 5.6 it makes similar IQ compared to EF 100-400 @ 300mm f/5.6.

I have been told that non-is and original IS models should have similar optical performance but who knows.. Anyway my 300 2.8L is not that sharp as I excepted it to be before I bought it.
No matter if I use liveview AF, manual AF..same results.

mines sharp!

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

bridge99 wrote in post #12137086

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

JUST AWSOME!!! Lucky you!!

One of the best owl photos I have seen!